Better ways to deal with Peodophiles.

I've always been baffled by why known Peodophiles are allowed to roam the streets. Slaps on the wrists, ineffectual supervision orders, community punishments and a pointless entry in the sex offenders register seems like no protection for the public at all. Why can't these people not be taken of the streets for a very very long time as the public would want ? Whilst it is tempting to imagine institutional sympathy for nonces among the legal and social welfare professions I suspect the answer lies elsewhere. Perhaps with costs savings or a misclassication and trivialisation of the crime because no one dies ? Whatever the reasons the current system is not working.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the criminal justice system, but in the mental health system. Why are they not sectioned or declared incurable and  mentally ill. I don't think many would argue that Peodphilia is mental afflication rather than an a crime of circumstance. Treat them as Mad more than Bad and get them off the streets for good. As no one can cure a Peodophile they won't be coming back into circulation, end of.

I know this opens a can of worms as far a civil liberties, etc goes, the mental health system is not  intended as a punishment mechanism, etc; but the reality is Peodophile reoffend time after time, it is a mental disorder. For this one crime we need to take a more honest look at how it is dealt with. Stop pretending that 6 month in jail makes them a safe and fit person to re-release into society, they can't be fixed, stop trying to fool the public that they should walk amongst us.

Why is this idea important?

I've always been baffled by why known Peodophiles are allowed to roam the streets. Slaps on the wrists, ineffectual supervision orders, community punishments and a pointless entry in the sex offenders register seems like no protection for the public at all. Why can't these people not be taken of the streets for a very very long time as the public would want ? Whilst it is tempting to imagine institutional sympathy for nonces among the legal and social welfare professions I suspect the answer lies elsewhere. Perhaps with costs savings or a misclassication and trivialisation of the crime because no one dies ? Whatever the reasons the current system is not working.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the criminal justice system, but in the mental health system. Why are they not sectioned or declared incurable and  mentally ill. I don't think many would argue that Peodphilia is mental afflication rather than an a crime of circumstance. Treat them as Mad more than Bad and get them off the streets for good. As no one can cure a Peodophile they won't be coming back into circulation, end of.

I know this opens a can of worms as far a civil liberties, etc goes, the mental health system is not  intended as a punishment mechanism, etc; but the reality is Peodophile reoffend time after time, it is a mental disorder. For this one crime we need to take a more honest look at how it is dealt with. Stop pretending that 6 month in jail makes them a safe and fit person to re-release into society, they can't be fixed, stop trying to fool the public that they should walk amongst us.

No more MPs changing parties

MPs should not be allowed to change party midterm without having to face another election within a short period of time. It should not be possible for an MP to switch from say Labour to Conservative whip without having to win local election on the new arrangement first. This seems to happen a couple of time in each four year parliament and is an afront to democracy. 

Whilst purists will argue that you elect the MP, and they are free to choose their party, and the party is free to choose the Prime minister. The reality is few know or care who the MP actually is, they vote for their party of choice and who they want to be Prime Minister, not the person themselves.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should not be allowed to change party midterm without having to face another election within a short period of time. It should not be possible for an MP to switch from say Labour to Conservative whip without having to win local election on the new arrangement first. This seems to happen a couple of time in each four year parliament and is an afront to democracy. 

Whilst purists will argue that you elect the MP, and they are free to choose their party, and the party is free to choose the Prime minister. The reality is few know or care who the MP actually is, they vote for their party of choice and who they want to be Prime Minister, not the person themselves.

No more unelected Prime Ministers

Parties should not be allowed to change leaders midterm without seeking a new mandate from the public for that the new leader within a very short period of time. Whilst we don't have a presendential system, it is obvious given the prominent position of the leaders in the election campaigns e.g. their role in the leaders debates on TV, that people are still voting the national leader as much as the party they wish to govern.  If we are not changing to a presendential system then the next best thing is to remove the power of small cliques of MPs to change who the Prime Minister is. The democratic contempt of small groups of MPs and cabinet minister shown recently with their plots and vested interests deciding who the PM is a huge insult to the electorate. The PM sets the course of the nation and can take this country to war, the post should not be the whim of a few party insiders to decide.

In recent years we have had two unelected PMs (Major and Brown), both imposed on the nation by coupe d'etat. In the last parliament the man who won the mandate (Blaire) said in plain english he would stay for the whole term, i.e. no "vote Blair get Brown". What happened ? The exact opposite. During the recent election we were only a few seats away from having three mandateless PMs back to back  –  Brown (steps down to enable LibLab pact), Harmen then as stands in a temporary leader (as she is doing now) then finally a new Labour leader (Milliband, etc) emerges as PM months after the general election once Labour's internal political process had played out. How can we talk to the world about democracy with a system like that ?

Why is this idea important?

Parties should not be allowed to change leaders midterm without seeking a new mandate from the public for that the new leader within a very short period of time. Whilst we don't have a presendential system, it is obvious given the prominent position of the leaders in the election campaigns e.g. their role in the leaders debates on TV, that people are still voting the national leader as much as the party they wish to govern.  If we are not changing to a presendential system then the next best thing is to remove the power of small cliques of MPs to change who the Prime Minister is. The democratic contempt of small groups of MPs and cabinet minister shown recently with their plots and vested interests deciding who the PM is a huge insult to the electorate. The PM sets the course of the nation and can take this country to war, the post should not be the whim of a few party insiders to decide.

In recent years we have had two unelected PMs (Major and Brown), both imposed on the nation by coupe d'etat. In the last parliament the man who won the mandate (Blaire) said in plain english he would stay for the whole term, i.e. no "vote Blair get Brown". What happened ? The exact opposite. During the recent election we were only a few seats away from having three mandateless PMs back to back  –  Brown (steps down to enable LibLab pact), Harmen then as stands in a temporary leader (as she is doing now) then finally a new Labour leader (Milliband, etc) emerges as PM months after the general election once Labour's internal political process had played out. How can we talk to the world about democracy with a system like that ?

Force Cold Call companies to disclose their sources.

Companies that call your home should be required to disclose to you how and from whom they obtained your number and details. These people that are probably breaking the law in the first place by calling some who is on the Caller Preference list then hide behind data protection by refusing to disclose where they obtained your contact details. They also say you must have ticked a box on some website that said you wished to be contacted, well unless you tell me which site/form/person gave you my details I have no way to knowing that. I am sure many companies are ignoring the contact wishes tick boxes and selling your details on anyway, knowing you have no way to check up on it. Make disclosure of the whole chain from form, through agencies, to cold callers a mandatory disclosure.

Why is this idea important?

Companies that call your home should be required to disclose to you how and from whom they obtained your number and details. These people that are probably breaking the law in the first place by calling some who is on the Caller Preference list then hide behind data protection by refusing to disclose where they obtained your contact details. They also say you must have ticked a box on some website that said you wished to be contacted, well unless you tell me which site/form/person gave you my details I have no way to knowing that. I am sure many companies are ignoring the contact wishes tick boxes and selling your details on anyway, knowing you have no way to check up on it. Make disclosure of the whole chain from form, through agencies, to cold callers a mandatory disclosure.

Party Wall agreements

Your neighbour is doing something in their house, they won't tell you what it is, they have submitted plans to the council for building control, but they won't tell what your neighbour is doing either. You suspect your neighbour may need a party wall agreement for the work, but they haven't offered you for one. You are now compelled sit there while work continues without an agreement or engage a surveyor at around £1500 to intervene on the assumption you may need a party wall agreement, which is both a financial risk and a declaration of war on your neighbour.

Why not ensure that building control and planning permission will not be issued without the correct Party Wall agreements in place, that way the neighbours a protected as of right not the good graces of the people carrying out the work.

Why is this idea important?

Your neighbour is doing something in their house, they won't tell you what it is, they have submitted plans to the council for building control, but they won't tell what your neighbour is doing either. You suspect your neighbour may need a party wall agreement for the work, but they haven't offered you for one. You are now compelled sit there while work continues without an agreement or engage a surveyor at around £1500 to intervene on the assumption you may need a party wall agreement, which is both a financial risk and a declaration of war on your neighbour.

Why not ensure that building control and planning permission will not be issued without the correct Party Wall agreements in place, that way the neighbours a protected as of right not the good graces of the people carrying out the work.